Where free rations are given, people don't want to work: SC judge B.R. Gavai

The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticised the announcement of freebies by governments and political parties ahead of elections, stating that such policies disincentivise people from working and, in states like Maharashtra, contribute to a dwindling labour force.

A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih was hearing a plea concerning shelter homes for the homeless. During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that such policies primarily benefit the wealthy. “The main victims are the have-nots, the poor, and the homeless. Unfortunately, the cause of homelessness is not addressed; it remains a low priority in this country. Compassion appears to be reserved only for the rich,” Bhushan stated.

Bhushan and petitioner-in-person E.R. Kumar also highlighted that the government had stopped funding the Urban Shelter scheme in recent years, leaving states and Union Territories claiming they lack funds to provide shelters. As a result, homeless individuals continue to suffer on the streets, with over 750 dying this winter owing to the cold.

During the hearing of a PIL seeking shelter for the urban homeless in Delhi, Justice Gavai expressed his disapproval of the distribution of freebies ahead of elections, suggesting that a better solution would be to integrate the homeless into mainstream society so they could contribute to the nation's development. “I am sorry to say, but the affidavit says that facilities will be provided to them. Instead of helping them become part of society and contribute to the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?” he asked.

“Because of these freebies, such as the Ladli Behen scheme, people are not willing to work. They receive free rations and money without doing any work. I can tell you from personal experience that in some states, where free rations are given, people simply do not want to work," he added.

Justice Gavai also took exception to the suggestion that compassion is reserved for the wealthy, warning the petitioners not to make political speeches. “Don’t give speeches here as if you were at Ramlila Maidan. In this court, restrict yourself to the argument. If you are advocating for someone, focus on that. Do not make unnecessary allegations or political speeches. We will not allow our court to become a political platform,” he cautioned.

The counsel clarified, “That was not my intent. I didn’t mean that." Justice Gavai then asked, “How can you say that compassion is only shown to the rich?”

When Bhushan responded by stating that no one in the country would refuse work if it were available, Justice Gavai rejected the argument, saying, “You must have only one-sided knowledge. I come from an agricultural family. Because of the freebies announced just before the elections in Maharashtra, farmers are struggling to find labourers. Everyone is receiving free benefits at home.”

Bhushan attempted to explain that some shelters had been removed for area beautification, but the court pointed out that the Delhi government had reported that the shelters were in a dilapidated condition. Justice Gavai once again asked, “Instead of integrating them into mainstream society and enabling them to contribute to the nation's development, are we not creating a class of parasites?”

“Because of these freebies, announced on the eve of elections, people are not willing to work. They receive free rations and money without doing any work. Why should they work?” he reiterated.

As Bhushan tried to intervene again, Justice Gavai said, “We appreciate your concern for them, but wouldn’t it be better to integrate them into society and allow them to contribute to the nation's development? I am telling you from personal experience, in states where free rations are given, people simply do not want to work.”

Bhushan replied, “There is hardly anyone in this country who would not want to work if work were available. People come to cities because there is no work in their villages.”

At one point, Bhushan raised the issue of the dilapidated conditions of some shelters, suggesting this was why the homeless were reluctant to use them. Justice Gavai unsympathetically retorted, “Between a shelter that is uninhabitable and sleeping on the road, what is more preferable?”

While Justice Gavai acknowledged that providing things for free could lead people to become accustomed to not working, he also recognised that the right to shelter is a fundamental right. He questioned, however, whether a better approach would not be to integrate the homeless into mainstream society and allow them to contribute to the nation’s development. How exactly that can be achieved presumably never came up for discussion.

What is the case?

The Court was informed that the Union is in the process of finalising a new Mission on Urban Poverty Alleviation. The Court requested attorney-general R. Venkataramani to provide details of the scheme and its expected timeline for implementation.

This case concerns the right to shelter for homeless individuals in urban areas. In October 2022, the Court directed all states and Union Territories to submit status reports. Last year, it asked several states and UTs, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar, to submit their winter plans and measures for the urban homeless. Advocate Bhushan highlighted a two-fold issue: insufficient shelter capacity and the poor condition of existing shelters.

During the December hearing, Bhushan argued that Delhi’s shelter capacity is only 17,000, though it should be over 200,000. He also noted that since the Court's 2022 orders, nine shelters had been demolished, displacing 450 homeless people, which exceeded the capacity of 286. Additionally, five more shelters were closed due to their dilapidated condition, displacing a further 250 people.

The court was informed that this issue was not confined to Delhi alone. The counsel urged the Union of India to consider reviving the 2013 National Urban Livelihoods Mission scheme, which lapsed in 2018.

In December, when the attorney-general appeared before the Court, Justice Gavai pointed out that the states had amended the relevant scheme and that the issue of funding from the Central government needed to be addressed. Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted that the scheme had not been renewed since 2018. The attorney-general responded that a new scheme was being proposed.

The bench of Justices Gavai and Masih ordered that the attorney-general should verify the data regarding homeless persons and shelters from the ministries of home affairs or urban development. It also requested the attorney-general to confirm the timeline for the implementation of the new Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission, which will address poverty and shelter issues for the urban homeless. The Court further instructed the attorney-general to obtain instructions on whether the Union of India would continue the National Urban Livelihoods Mission until the new scheme is implemented.

The order came after petitioner E.R. Kumar presented a chart in Court showing the state-wise position of homeless persons and shelter availability. The Court asked the attorney-general to verify the data presented.

Additionally, the Supreme Court is considering other petitions aimed at curbing the promises of “freebies” made by political parties ahead of elections. In 2022, a two-judge bench framed several issues and referred the matter to a larger bench, with the reference still pending.